Does a cop have to provide a statute if asked?

[naseem]

Hey I'm a college student and get profiled by police a lot because I'm young and dress a certain way, so I'm just trying to get as much information on my rights as possible.

Say a police officer stops you and is trying to search your car, (because this probably the most common reason a police officer would try to search your car) let's say he suspect you of carrying narcotics. Obviously a citizen has the right to refuse any search or seizure without a warrant, but obviously there is a large amount of cops in the USA that violate these rights or think they have the right to do things that they don't, so let's say you refuse the search and he says "well, I smell an odor of marijuana coming from your car, giving me probable cause to search your car". If you ask the officer what state or federal statute allows him to search a car based on his opinion of the smell, does he legally have to provide the statute before conducting the search? Does this account for any meeting with an officer of the law, where before getting information out of me, searching my car or any personal and private property of mine or arresting me he would have to provide a statute? If he goes ahead an illegally or legally conducts the search, how do I let him know that though he is now searching my car, in order to search my locked trunk he needs a warrant? Do I just tell him that flat out?

If you have the answers to my questions, I'd appreciate a link confirming it as anyone can say anything on the internet. Not necessary though, all comments and answers are appreciated, thank you so much!

[bret11]

Hey I'm a college student and get profiled by police a lot because I'm young and dress a certain way, so I'm just trying to get as much information on my rights as possible.

Say a police officer stops you and is trying to search your car, (because this probably the most common reason a police officer would try to search your car) let's say he suspect you of carrying narcotics. Obviously a citizen has the right to refuse any search or seizure without a warrant, but obviously there is a large amount of cops in the USA that violate these rights or think they have the right to do things that they don't, so let's say you refuse the search and he says "well, I smell an odor of marijuana coming from your car, giving me probable cause to search your car". If you ask the officer what state or federal statute allows him to search a car based on his opinion of the smell, does he legally have to provide the statute before conducting the search? Does this account for any meeting with an officer of the law, where before getting information out of me, searching my car or any personal and private property of mine or arresting me he would have to provide a statute? If he goes ahead an illegally or legally conducts the search, how do I let him know that though he is now searching my car, in order to search my locked trunk he needs a warrant? Do I just tell him that flat out?

If you have the answers to my questions, I'd appreciate a link confirming it as anyone can say anything on the internet. Not necessary though, all comments and answers are appreciated, thank you so much!

No they do not.

[vanaken25]

He just need reasonable belief a crime has been committed, details will be provided when you are arrested.
On the other hand, your ignorance of the law is no excuse

[winfrid12]

The only time an officer has to tell you anything is whenever they are arresting you. My husband IS an officer. I.e. mirandizing you, surfing a warrant or SOMETIMES a court order.

If they knock on your door that's different... They need to tell you why they are there. It's common courtesy. But they do have to.

But if you notice you are being followed, they likely won't give you info. Sometimes it's an investigation and they are legally obligated NOT to tell you. They cannot jeopardize an investigation.

Now, if you have nothing to hide, then I would let them follow follow follow. They will learn soon enough they have the wrong person. I wouldn't be looking at the officers as the ones who decided to follow you. You may have hung out with a less then reputable person who was being investigated. It's called guilt by association. Not punishable, but worth looking into.

[sherborne16]

No. But I was a kid in the 1960s who used to get profiled, (and used to drive a bit fast). I have never permitted smoking tobacco, or anything illegal in my car. But I had read a book on the law of search and seizure, and remember reading that "the court takes a dim view of narcotics officers stopping people for minor traffic violations just in order to search their car." so I always got out of the car and locked it behind me if stopped. On a couple of occasions the police insisted on searching the car and I told them to get a warrant.

One time the officer was insistent and I told him the keys are in my pocket and I am not resisting you, but if you take them you will have violated my civil rights because there is no evidence in the car of speeding. A supervisor arrived and asked me to sign and voluntarily allow them to search it. I asked why I would do that, since they would just cite me for speeding anyway, so he said that if there was nothing in the car they wouldn't write me a ticket (which I well and truly deserved). Although I had a handgun in the car, it was unloaded, disassembled and locked in the glove box, as required by law. I told them about it so they didn't freak out. They called in the serial number, learned it wasn't stolen, and let me go without a ticket..

Another time I was on a road trip through the south with a black friend. I told them to get a warrant and a few minutes later, a guy in a suit drove up and he said "Mr or Mrs. John Doe, I have a warrant for the search of you and the vehicle". So I gave him the keys and there was nothing there, but then he took me before a justice of the peace, and I was fined for every dime I had on me. More than a normal ticket. I was angry so I called the FBI to report that my civil rights had been violated, and was told that if I made a formal complaint, I'd have to stay there for weeks or months, so their best advice was to just point my car north.

When I later got a job as a Border Patrol Agent, I could not only recite every statute verbatim, I could recite the Supreme Court cases that proved what I was doing was constitutional and not violative of civil rights. Same with IRS when I used to deal with tax protesters who said taxes are unconstitutional and visit peoples houses after they claimed they were tax exempt churches.

[smid]

We citizens have the right to refuse a search without a warrant, as you said. This means when a cop asks to search your car, tell him " Sorry officer, I do NOT consent to searches," The cop will try to convince you that he needs to search your car. For example, he may say what you said " I smell a strong odor and have a probable cause to search your car and therefore I would like to search your car." They may even say something like " Now if you don't let me search your car, I'm going to bring a K-9 down here to sniff your car and if he sniffs some drugs, he will tear your car up. Now, do you want to do this the easy way or the hard way. It's up to you." Cops will try to intimidate you into allowing them to search your car. But if you consistently say, " Sorry officer, I do not consent to searches." They will not be authorized to search your car. And if they do, and find something, you can say in court that the cop violated your right. Remember cops can legally lie to you. So they will always try to get you to allow them to search your car. And if I were you, don't carry drugs in your car. In fact, don't carry them at all. They'll only get you in trouble. And if you do carry them, it's at your own risk. The cops are just doing their job. They're just trying to take drugs off the street, so I can't really blame them.

[hackett]

Nope, you do not "have" to get the actual statute until after arrested and appearing before a judge during arraignment hearing. That is when you are given formal charges.

First off what you are talking about is based on court precedents which can change daily. Not written law. See all those books behind the fake lawyer advertising on TV? They are full of precedents,earlier decisions made by higher courts after consideration of the way that lots of lower courts interpreted the all and the US Constitution and Supreme Court and other higher court decisions.
Not a specific written law.
As to the actual law they change from state to state and may change from county to county and if you are in a city large enough for home rule the city. Even specialized government entities such as a public transit or park system can have their own codes which can be enforced by wither local police, sometimes, or the police working for those agencies.


But lets leave it to the state laws, the basics for almost all real criminal law.
No criminal attorney or judge who only hears criminal cases would know the laws. They all keep copies of the laws and statutes with them to look things up, not just wording but the specifics statute.

Back in the day in my county we had very specialized courts. The prosecutor, the PD and the judge just worked certain kinds of cases. One of those courts was gun court. They heard preliminary and minor trial on all gun only cases in the city. More than once I have seen the judge stand up to read a law involving the possession of handguns in certain areas to the room in general, sending both the prosecutor and the PD scurrying to check their law books.
A police officer, in one case me, found part of a law not directly related to gun seizures where possession of a handgun was illegal and charged a person with it.
In my case I was working only in our high rise project buildings. Under the law no one could possess a handgun who lived in federally or state funded housing.
The law had been passed, at Fed urging, 5 years previous but no one but my partner had noticed it, We only found it because we subscribed to a seizure & search newsletter (this was before the internet) and read about it.

[sampson]

No. The police officer does not have to cite the specific law giving him the power to do whatever he's trying to do.

You just need to stand your ground. You don't have to consent to a search. Period. You don't need to argue about it with the police officer. Just don't consent.

If he's asking it's because he doesn't think he's got enough evidence to search without a warrant. If he asks, and you say No, it will look really bad for him to search anyway.

The police are the last place to go for legal advice. Even if the police officer did offer a statue how would you know if its correct?

So it's a waste of time to argue with a police officer. Don't answer any questions and don't consent to any searches. EVER. That's the best thing anyone can ever do when dealing with the police.

If the police officer searches anyway don't physically resist. Just repeat the fact you do not consent. He will have to articulate in court later why he thought he didn't need a warrant.

[oded]

No. The police officer does not have to cite the specific law giving him the power to do whatever he's trying to do.

You just need to stand your ground. You don't have to consent to a search. Period. You don't need to argue about it with the police officer. Just don't consent.

If he's asking it's because he doesn't think he's got enough evidence to search without a warrant. If he asks, and you say No, it will look really bad for him to search anyway.

The police are the last place to go for legal advice. Even if the police officer did offer a statue how would you know if its correct?

So it's a waste of time to argue with a police officer. Don't answer any questions and don't consent to any searches. EVER. That's the best thing anyone can ever do when dealing with the police.

If the police officer searches anyway don't physically resist. Just repeat the fact you do not consent. He will have to articulate in court later why he thought he didn't need a warrant.

He pops out a Buddha statute.

Plastic Marijuana plants to screw with cops:
http://www.quickdistco.com/novelties/wpla.html

[barclay76]

A statute only needs to be cited in court, not on the street.

It is not practical for an officer to memorize every statute or to even have them on hand. There are so many laws I would have to tow a trailer of books behind my squad if that was the case.

My only requirement is to know where to find the law.